As we approach the task of gathering together in election booths to cast our votes, it is clear that we have little clue about our task.
We are being harangued and misled by so much of what aspiring politicians are saying, criticising and promising, all in the same breath. The show is confusing and has long since descended into a hall of mirrors act across the political spectrum.
What appears to be most important is the "debate" about what is termed "global warming", climate change.
I am reminded of the old poem: '"We'll all be rooned", said Hanrahan/ In accents most forlorn'. This is what an energised gaggle of climate warriors is insisting. Our long drought would seem to give some credibility to their strident claims.
We are told the "science is in", but this can only be believed depending on which set of assumptions and consequent conclusions you consider.
The main polluters are increasing their carbon footprint by many times Australia's current footprint, and they do not intend to stop before 2030. So what effect will Australia's bewildering and economically degrading intended reductions have?
Canada and the EU are reviewing their planned reductions. No EU country is even meeting the Paris commitments. Renewables growth in Europe has slowed markedly; wind and solar installations have gone into reverse. Last year they were half that in 2010.
Moreover the main "renewables" generation in the EU comes from burning biomass - mainly burning firewood pellets, much of it sourced from the US. Biomass is 65 percent of Europe's emissions. Biomass generators, such as Drax in Yorkshire, emit between 50 and 100 per cent more CO2 to create the electricity required by the communities. Europe also imports US "fracked" gas.
Interestingly, the EU only counts the CO2 emitted during processing wood pellets and transportation. The EU ignores the greater amounts of CO2 emitted during generation.
All this will continue, so what real effect will Australia's proposed conversion to energy obtained solely from "renewables" - wind and sun? Is the idea even sensible given our huge sources of high quality coal, and our capacity to design and build HELE generation?
Numerous proposed solar developments (90 plus) have failed to gain investment and gone into receivership or liquidation in South Australia and Queensland. The huge government subsidies are very attractive, but you have to secure the hard-cash investment from the communities.
What damage will be caused to Australia's industries, employment, and our measured lifestyles?
Perhaps the aspiring politicians in New England would be good enough to detail the costs pertinent to our community, to our social and economic existence, of the plans to create totally renewable power supplies in Australia. What will be the extent of our sacrifices?
Other parts of the world do not appear to be so confident these days.
Bruce Watson, Kentucky